Thank you for that.

And, Mouse, a big kudos to you for attempting to bridge gaps in our individual understanding. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Yorick, to get back to your points. I may call it "fundamentalist" but what is BY FAR more important is the definition I'm using (which I'm still working with, of course -- this is a New Project [TM] for me). Anyway, if your understanding of the definition of fundamentalism is different, fine -- and thanks for pointing out where you think differently.

But, whether I call it "fundamentalism" or not, the defined characteristics are the important part. We can call it Fundamentalism as Understood By American Researchers, or "FUBAR" for short. Or we can call it Fundamentalism as Defined by Three Sets of Characteristics, or "FDTSC." Or simply "Bob" -- but I think we've got a few of those already. The point is that I'm trying to look at a set of characteristics which, when combined, may lead to the Ef'd up situation of religious militant extremism.

Anyway, the point is please don't take offense at the word -- especially when you and I understand it differently.

Not at all. It's fundamental mainstream christian doctrine. Predestination and free will hold a delicate and intertwining balance in fundamental doctrine.

1 John 4:19
We love because he first loved us.

I don't see that works. I could use my own definition of "American". It could mean Americans who are like Jerry Falwell. You however, consider yourself American, so it affects you.

I would, I think, hesitantly call myself fundamentalist in certain areas, liberal in others. I am certainly not a "liberal christian", definitely more fundamentalist.

But with people perpetuating the definition you are espousing, it puts people like myself into a wierd no-mans land, for we are nothing like what you're portraying, yet you're using our self definition, equating us with violent extremism.

Not the same thing.

Surely, if you're going to use a label about OTHERS it's important to understand what they themselves are?

I could use "English" to mean "British (English, Welsh, Scottish). It takes away the Celts self identity.

I could use "Yankee" to mean all Americans (as is common overseas) , lumping southerners in with those from NY.

Surely what people call themselves is important in finding what that word means?

If you have a tome that you live by, and you stick strictly to a fundamental manner of living as per that tome, you are a fundamentalist.
If you are selective, if you lapse, if you merge the ideas of the tome with other ideas, you are more "liberal".

Timber, can you check out this thread for me.....

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...754;p=1#000014

Hear Ye, Hear YE.

Guys, this topic reminds me of a UN counsel meeting.

With that said, you are now discussing the issues that I have known, and lived with since 1990. Add this entire topic into legal sense, then you can write the ROE!

In a nutshell, it has taken Timber, our IW resident lawyer to do research, it brings in folks like Yorick to speak of church. And it all rolls into what? What our government and mainly the military has to deal with on a daily basis.

This topic started with some heated, and hated responses. Honestly, it did not even cross my aim point to look. Why? Because I have seen this first person in action. Note: I have never been to Iran. But the area down there is one in the same. Stuff like this happened, and will continue to happen. It's part of their culture, and that is WHAT we don't fully understand.

I ask that you focus your attention, like other's and research the religon, the laws, and the culture. For there is where lies the true meaning, and the difference between us and them!

No problem T.L. I don't know if you saw my last post I wasn't offended. [img]smile.gif[/img]
The elect/chosen/called out was probibly the biggest point pushing me into the Fundi. camp. I hadn't even thought of the Calvinist view of predestination in 25-30 years so it didn't cross my mind.

I'd say I'm more in the 1st camp Aerich presented. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-25-2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

I know, I'm pretty pissed off at the Iranian government right now.

I know, I'm pretty pissed off at the Iranian government right now. </font>[/QUOTE]Likewise. I'd be more than happy to see it go down, but I'd prefer it to come from within the country.

I know, I'm pretty pissed off at the Iranian government right now. </font>[/QUOTE]Likewise. I'd be more than happy to see it go down, but I'd prefer it to come from within the country. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree.

Not at all. It's fundamental mainstream christian doctrine. Predestination and free will hold a delicate and intertwining balance in fundamental doctrine.

1 John 4:19
We love because he first loved us. </font>[/QUOTE]I'll make one final clarification and leave it at that. Followers of extreme Calvinist doctrine (amongst others, I'm sure) believe that to be elect/chosen gives them automatic and inviolable access to their God's Grace. Therefore their State of Grace is unaffected by their actions on earth. They believe can lie, cheat, steal and even murder without affecting their eventual salvation. Such an extreme interpretation and application of the concept of predestination, I'm sure you'll agree, is not supported and encouraged by "mainstream" or even most "fundamental" faiths.

:D

You lot will find anything to argue about, eh. :D

Oh well, that's what this forum is for...but be nice to each other, eh? :D

Nope that is actually fundamental mainstream Christian doctrine Mouse. Once you receive Christ's grace, you can, in theory sin to your hearts content and not lose your salvation. This theology is biblical and the consequences of it are addressed by Paul, when he actually asks if we should willingly sin, so that we receive more and more grace... to which he answers "no".

Though we CAN, we shouldn't. Sin affects our relationship with God. It affects our effectiveness in ministry, and has irreversible physical consequences (you can't unring a bell) but it doesn't affect salvation. Amazing grace.

That is the heart of the good news. There is nothing we can do to make God love us more, and nothing we can do to make God love us less. Fundamental mainstream Christian doctrine.

At the heart of fundamentalist Christianity is the idea of Jesus dying for our sins. Any adherance to the laws of Moses, or to Jesus own commands, are followed out of LOVE. Out of a prodding of the indwelling Holy Spirit, not out of FEAR of losing salvation.

Any and every "rule" of the bible - whether keeping sex for marriage, not lying, or whatever - I keep because I love my God, I love the presence of his Holy Spirit, (that is grieved by sin) and because I have found every law of the bible is for my own benefit. They exist to create a happy life, a workable society and a God-intended state of existence. I don't keep them out of fear of losing salvation.

That is the fundamental, mainstream approach. Grace abounds. Yay for us. God condemns the world by setting up the law of Moses, allowing free will, and creating the concept of sin. He condemns us so he can forgive us of any and everything, because FORGIVENESS is love with a cost. It's arguably the highest form of love, along with dying for someone you love.... which Jesus also did. ;)

Hence the "good news" (gospel).

So it IS fundamentalist and mainstream Christian doctrine Mouse. [img]smile.gif[/img]

But it's an anathaema to Judaism, and Islam, which do not have Christs grace.

[ 08-26-2004, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

This is the most shocking aspect of the scenario. How dare he use his power to end the life of a woman, based on a grudge. It is a truly appalling misuse of power.

If Mohammad is right, and the Qu'ran is correct, Allah will most suredly judge this man. I think when all is said and done, we will find that his actions are deplorable under Islamic, Christian, and Jewish teaching.

Had she money, she would have had a lawyer, and so not had to use her "sharp tongue".

I reread the links. I do not think we have heard the end of this.

<font color=plum>I understand why the generalization upsets you, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>. After all, I consider myself to be a "fundamentalist Christian" too. I'm also one of the few I've seen (even on the Christian board I linked earlier) that will boldly say I believe the entire Bible IS the literal and inerrant Word of God. So it bothers me too when a term like "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" is used to describe the actions of a radical sect - since it seems to give the implication that ALL "fundamentalist" follow or agree with their views and actions.

But we have to realize that generalized labels will always be used by people to define certain groups - especially when the person using the label doesn't belong to that specific group. Those outside the group don't know or see the distinctions (or boundaries) that members of the group use to differentiate among themselves. Your example of all Americans being referred to as "Yanks" by those from other countries is a perfect example. Most of us in the South certainly consider the distinction between "Yankee" and "Southerner" to be important, but I can also understand why that distinction wouldn't be important at all to someone from London, Paris, Rome or Sydney.

I also agree completely with <font color=white>John D. Harris</font>. Any label is only as offensive as you allow it to be. ;)

You're awesome, and I'm glad you exist.

You're awesome, and I'm glad you exist. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=plum>Awwwww shucks. You're gonna make me blush. [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Just remember, mate, words only have the amount of power we give them. I had to take a break from C.E. to relearn this lesson and to regain the proper perspective. I know it's a cliche', but it really is true - "Nobody can make you become angry...you have to choose to become angered by their words. Certainly there are words, phrases or labels that each of us take more personally than others, but in the end, it is our individual choice to become angry or not. </font>

Thanks for your last comment Cerek. It's all about perspective. We as mods have to practice it every day - we have to put our little pet hates and such aside to maintain an unbiased viewpoint. It's not always easy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just a note that this thread seems to be veering towards crossing the moratorium line - the last few posts, while having been conducted very civilly, set off some warning bells in my head. Call me paranoid, but I don't want religion to become THE topic of discussion here - not at this point. Be careful, and use your judgment. Thanks guys. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 08-27-2004, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

This is the most shocking aspect of the scenario. How dare he use his power to end the life of a woman, based on a grudge. It is a truly appalling misuse of power.

If Mohammad is right, and the Qu'ran is correct, Allah will most suredly judge this man. I think when all is said and done, we will find that his actions are deplorable under Islamic, Christian, and Jewish teaching.

Had she money, she would have had a lawyer, and so not had to use her "sharp tongue". </font>[/QUOTE]Money isn't the issue, nor is her legal defense, or lack there-of, it's a problem with Sharia, and the ways Islam treats others in general (women are equal to 1/2 a man in legal discourse, ie it takes 2 male witnesses to prove something in islamic court, or 1 male and 2 females, non muslim men are not even counted as important as a muslim woman (to say nothing of non-muslim women), Iran has a rather more fundamental interpretation than most islamic countries (with the exception of Taliban run Afganistan, and a few others), leading to more severe injustices against those who disagree with the party line. Granted there are a lot of primarily muslim countries where women have significantly more rights, but a corrupt judge could just as easily do something similar in any one of them (although it likely wouldn't go so far as the death penalty, and if it didn't we never would have heard about it.

To Timber and Yorik, Yorik, your interpretaion of fundamentalism is quite different than TL's, the Waco incident in the 90's with the Branch Davidians , the entire Taliban regime, Iran's regime, all fit with Timber's definition of fundamentalism. Your personal view of what fundamentailist is is different, cool, call it something else, like Morgeruatism, or Timberism if it makes you more comfortable, but don't get nasty and snippy, I've been avoiding this forum because I felt the need to walk away and let cooler heads prevail rather than let loose against some members whom I don't agree with and get myself banned.

Yorik, this is from the definition you posted on the first page (last post on that page), it fits quite nicely within T.L.'s definition, you highlighted parts of it that agreed with your idea of it and ignored several parts of your definition, if you take out the part about the US it would read rather more like this "An organized, militant Evangelical movement in opposition to Religious Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture."

the church you described (your father's) is hardly militant, nor does it seem overly intolerant, it doesn't go about saying any who don't adhere to it's dogma are damned, it may believe in the fundamental teachings of Christ, but that doesn't (by your own definition) make it fundamentalist.

now can we please stop arguing about what the definition of "is" is , and continue onward in the topic.

[img]graemlins/imnotworthy.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/Nothing_funny_to_add.gif[/img]

Morgeruat, thanks for spelling all that out. I have not had the patience to come back and do it.

Yorick, the power is all yours -- rename what I'm discussing if you like. Call it FUBAR fundamentalism, as I suggested, I don't care. My definition stands, you just give me the term to insert, tell me what word I'm defining, mkay?

I'm not a guy hung up on nomenclature.

[ 08-27-2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Morgeruat, you rock. That was an excellent post.

Branch dravidism was a CULT. By definition a minority offshoot of existing beliefs. It is not fundamentalism. It is radicalist, extremist, but not fundamentalist, relative to it's origins.
In determining what is fundamentalism and what isn't you need to look at what the professed beliefs are, look at the majority of followers of those said beliefs, and then compare which follows the tenets fundamentally, liberally, radically, extremely, conservatively, reformatively etc etc etc etc.

Branch Dravidism was a radical and extreme offshoot of it's mother.
The Taliban was a radical and extreme application of Islam. You could probably argue it was fundamentalist, but that would involve researching what the fundamental beliefs of Islam actually are. The Taliban followed Wahabist Islam, which was a reformation of Islam to a fundamental level. No honoring of the prophets. Only honoring Allah. Strict intepretations of the original tenets of the faith


If militancy is fundamental to a worldview, then being a militant whatever, is a fundamentalist approach.... ack back in a tic

Goddammit would you please pay attention. Branch Dividism fit my definition, and that was the point. Rename it what you will and quit beating us over the head with your damned definition.

Take my definition and apply it to the facts, and call it whatever the hell you want, and quit preaching, man.

Your quoted definition: Contradicts your statement:
You have defined fundamentalism as limited by those "fundamental values" upon which it is based, and that is not anybody's definition of fundamentalism but your own. You can't even follow the definitions you quote. Is English even your first language?

I'm trying to have a discussion about a recipe of characteristics that leads to militant behavior. You're trying to debate the nomenclature we use for those characteristics. YOU WIN!!!! I said it already -- name it what you will. I don't care to hear anymore debate about the name we call this thing, I'd like to move on and discuss a social formula that may result in the problems we see coming from Islamic Fundamentalism. Call it BOB for heaven's sake -- I DON'T CARE!

Just, please quit derailing this into a liturgy of why you feel we've hurt your feelings by using a word. APOLOGIES -- AGAIN!!! I apologize, acquiesce, and then beg you to move on, yet you continue to rant and rail. Please just stop it and let's get back to discussing the issues.

[ 08-27-2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Contradicts your statement:

Quote:

If militancy is fundamental to a worldview, then being a militant whatever, is a fundamentalist approach

You have defined fundamentalism as limited by those "fundamental values" upon which it is based, and that is not anybody's definition of fundamentalism but your own. You can't even follow the definitions you quote. Is English even your first language?

I'm trying to have a discussion about a recipe of characteristics that leads to militant behavior. You're trying to debate the nomenclature we use for those characteristics. YOU WIN!!!! I said it already -- name it what you will. I don't care to hear anymore debate about the name we call this thing, I'd like to move on and discuss a social formula that may result in the problems we see coming from Islamic Fundamentalism. Call it BOB for heaven's sake -- I DON'T CARE!

Just, please quit derailing this into a liturgy of why you feel we've hurt your feelings by using a word. APOLOGIES -- AGAIN!!! I apologize, acquiesce, and then beg you to move on, yet you continue to rant and rail. Please just stop it and let's get back to discussing the issues. </font>[/QUOTE]I think it's pretty logical and simple Timber. Fundamentalism is AMORAL. It is a completely relative term. A fundamentalist Christian is the opposite of a liberal Christian, as they hold to the fundamental ideas, whereas a liberal compromises, personalises, alters, or adds elements. Same with a Jew, Muslim, Communist, whatever.

I would not call Stalin a fundamentalist communist because of his approach to the economy during the war for example.

It can be argued that fundamentalist Islam, is in fact militant, because a literalist imitative approach to the faith results in that behaviour. Do you see? A literal interpretation of the Bible - in particular, the Christian NEW TESTAMENT, results in an entirely different set of behaviour outcomes. What you often find Americans calling "fundamentalists" are actually more revisionistic - looking at the old testament rather than the new for example.

I do note, that the problem is in America, and the incorrect labelling is most often done by Americans. As said, within the Christian Churches, the Anglican Church, Sydney diocese, is regarded by fundamentalists, and Liberals (Uniting Church) alike as being what it regards itself as - fundamentalist.

I have to go... but if you can see the word "fundamentalism" as a method to having certain beliefs, rather than the certain beliefs themselves, we'll be in a clear position.

Calling it "Islamic Fundamentalism" suffices.

But it doesn't get all of the religions that I have defined. It limits it to a group of people not to a set of characteristics. May I emplore you to try a different term? A term that is not already well-defined?

I still like FUBAR Fundamentalism. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[ 08-27-2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

The set of characteristics are in METHOD. It's a very adequate descriptive term of a person of faiths METHOD. It's a clarifier within a faith. Liberal and Fundamentalist Muslims have more in common with each other than they do with Liberal or fundamentalist Christians. The behavioral outcomes are very different.

The American media would love it all to fit into this neat little box we can all deride and hate, but it's not like that.

It's like conservatism. Conservativism is right wing, but is still relevent to the existing political ideal of the conservative persons society. A conservative Russian during the last years of communism, would have been communist, A left wing radical would have been a capitalist democrat.

It does require a little bit of understanding, possible research and knowledge, but then that's a good thing right? :D :D

The fact is, a fundamentalist Christian, would have followed Jesus example, and prevented the crowd from executing the girl being hanged/stoned for adultery. ;) GRACE is fundamental to Christianity's salvation theology, but not to Islam.

<font color=skyblue>I am sure you know why I had to do this.

I'll give you a clue...it has nothing to do with the talk on religion...

Well...okay, it has a little to do with the talk on religion...</font>

[ 08-27-2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]